Why are tasty and healthy mutually exclusive?

It's not fair I want cake and pizza to be as healthy as cauliflower

That seems to read that calories are unhealthy??

It's not fair I want cake and pizza to be as healthy as cauliflower

That seems to read that calories are unhealthy??

Pizza is actually significantly healthier than cauliflower if you go by that one guy's definition. You will live a lot longer eating only pizza than you will by eating only cauliflower.

First, allow me to put the "speaking for myself only" disclaimer at the beginning. I haven't done a ton of research on IIFYM. I've been following the MFP plan and sneaking up on matching my macros. Over time reading the boards, I've come to believe IIFYM is closest to what I actually do. I used to think it was "clean" eating, just by virtue that I'm a cheap *kitten* that likes to cook things from scratch. Then I noticed that no two definitions of "clean" seemed to match in the details.

I think that dietary philosophies (which I consider to be different than "diets", as a matter of function) will tend to have adherents who view them in completely different ways. This goes for all dietary philosophies, in my opinion. I think we'll find some common ground as we go through your post.

Part of the IIFYM to me is the assumption that to be filling, satisfying, and keep you going through workouts your food will contain items that fit your micronutrient needs as well.

Where do you get the assumption that IIFYM (as a dietary philosophy) concerns itself in any way with micronutrients? I have not seen any of the IIFYM sites that spends too much time discussing micronutrient intake, nor have I seen it on here.

I can hit my carb goal on a few twinkies, or on a side of grains and veggies. I eat the veggie and grain products I prefer and stay full throughout the day, although at this point I've read threads trying to convince people they're going to carb hell for having white rice, brown rice, pasta, bread, gluten (I don't get this one either) or the Wrong Kind of Potatoes.

Let's keep the issue to IIFYM, as I think we begin to conflate it here by taking shots at people who have issues with carbs. IIFYM, in a sentence, would say, "As long as you reach your macronutrient and caloric goals for the day, it isn't important how those goals are attained." Do you disagree with that, or care to refine it?

It gets old.

From the flip side of the argument, it also gets old to see a post that says something like, "I need help lowering my sugars, because I keep going over," and seeing three dozen responses of "it doesn't matter, just eat the ice cream IIFYM." That's not helpful to the initial post, doesn't provide any real answer, and assumes that just because something works for you, that everyone would want to do it. It's at least as bad as any of the paleo/keto/primal proselytizing that goes on.

For me (there it is again) it lead to a rather b*tchy demand that people point out the unhealthy particles/chemicals/voodoo in a food. And I mean actually harmful, not acceptable in small doses "I KEEL YOU" items. Vitamins will harm you in the wrong amounts, but people seem to forget that.

I don't. Again, on the one hand you have people that are afraid of eating foods that have been treated with pesticides. On the other hand, you have people that hold that there is no difference in healthfulness between vegetables and a tablespoon of sugar. Again, that's an absurdity.

I get equally annoyed when some foods get touted as the new "magical" weight loss/health foods--even when they're foods I eat. Avocados? Tasty as hell. Something I can go over on easily? Well... yes. I can eat an "unhealthy" amount of this "healthy" food, therefore I try to eat it until it fits my macros.

I fail at it a lot. I am a horrible example of IIFYM. But I'm learning, and I'm learning a way to eat I can live with.

I think you're a poor example of the IIFYM people I was referring to, too, for what it's worth -- if only because you take a sane approach to things. As a collection of statements:

"You can eat an unhealthy amount of a seemingly healthful food." <--- Agree, as in your avocado example
"You shouldn't feel the need to completely wipe out a food from your diet if you don't want to." <--- Agree as well.
"A food that is generally considered not healthful can be consumed as part of a healthy diet." <--- Agree.
"No foods are any more healthy or unhealthy than any other food." <--- Absolutely disagree, and it doesn't follow from the first three statements.

It's no more inherently the fault of the twinkie if I over eat it than it is the fault of the avocado. I'm the deciding factor in whether a harmful amount of a type of food goes into my body.

Couple issues with this statement: I think you're equating harmful with "fattening", which I don't think is correct. Surely, getting fatter is harmful, but not all harmful things are fattening. Also, I don't think "blame" has any place in this conversation -- because it's not about demonizing a given food in any way. One can say a food is unhealthful without meaning, "you should never eat that food," which is I think a large disconnect in most of these conversations.

I think ice cream is generally unhealthful. It doesn't really add a whole lot of nutrition to my diet. However, ice cream is tasty, so I occasionally eat some, because I like to enjoy life. Nothing wrong with that, and I eat a ketogenic diet. It bumps me out of ketosis for a day or so, and then I'm good to go again.

A moment on the lips, forever on the hips.

Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.

Eat to live not live to eat.

Thank you for helping me stay strong

Where do you get the assumption that IIFYM (as a dietary philosophy) concerns itself in any way with micronutrients? I have not seen any of the IIFYM sites that spends too much time discussing micronutrient intake, nor have I seen it on here.

It's not an assumption. It's a core idea of IIFYM.

It's no surprise you haven't seen it, since you seem to have almost no exposure to or knowledge of IIFYM.

So... consider yourself having seen it. IIFYM is a dietary philosophy that encourages people to eat any sort of food they like, as long as doing so helps you hit your nutrient targets. Those nutrients include macro as well as micronutrients.

A moment on the lips, forever on the hips.

Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.

Eat to live not live to eat.

All of the above are favorite "thinspiration" for folks with eating disorders and all insanely stupid quotes. Food can and should be enjoyed.

I too find quotes like that so unhelpful. It promotes a new kind of unhealthy relationship with food. Food is not the enemy!

I am a chef. I know every trick about how to make food "delicious" by today's standards.

Personally, I think modern food tastes like "insanity"

So many artificial flavors and colors and enhancers that just wreck food. We do so much to our food, no wonder so many people develop food allergies now.

Fast food and Junk food are loaded with things that we really don't know what the long term effects are. If you trust the FDA to determine what is safe, then you have more faith in them than I do.

When you see kids that won't eat an apple because to doesn't have enough flavor to them, then you can see we have done something very wrong.

Where do you get the assumption that IIFYM (as a dietary philosophy) concerns itself in any way with micronutrients? I have not seen any of the IIFYM sites that spends too much time discussing micronutrient intake, nor have I seen it on here.

Honestly? I filed this one under common sense. It's impossible for me to feel full eating foods that will blow one of my macros with absolutely no other benefits in any other area. I'd be a headachy, snarling mess by noon and go over my calorie and macro goals by lunchtime.

Sticking with the twinkie example--two cakes have 46g carbs and 33g sugar. It takes three cups of strawberries to get even close to that at 35g carbs and 21g sugar. Even eating a more realistic amount of strawberries gives me more food mass, more vitamin c, and some dietary fiber. So by trying to fit my macros, I'm making what I assume people would call a healthier food substitution and fitting in my micros as well.

"As long as you reach your macronutrient and caloric goals for the day, it isn't important how those goals are attained." Do you disagree with that, or care to refine it?

I think I covered this one in my above statement. To match my macro and calorie goals I mostly eat foods that cover my micronutrients as well. Then, at the end of the day if I have the calories to splurge I'll have something fun. If you can do it another way and still have energy for the rest of your life, then more power to ya. I'd envy you for having a physiology that allowed such a thing.

From the flip side of the argument, it also gets old to see a post that says something like, "I need help lowering my sugars, because I keep going over," and seeing three dozen responses of "it doesn't matter, just eat the ice cream IIFYM." That's not helpful to the initial post, doesn't provide any real answer, and assumes that just because something works for you, that everyone would want to do it. It's at least as bad as any of the paleo/keto/primal proselytizing that goes on.

I don't really have an answer to this. I haven't seen these posts. I have seen posts where people claim fruit sugar is somehow different from other sugars, rather than the more accurate view that fruits have other benefits like the dietary fiber and vitamins mentioned before. Then said people get mad when they're told sugar is a simple substance no different in a cake or a cantaloupe. And I have seen posts where people claim that sugar tracking is only important for people with health issues concerning blood sugar. Considering this, I do think it's helpful to tell people they can eat high-sugar items such as apples, greek yogurt, and ice cream. You know, if it fits their macros.

On the other hand, you have people that hold that there is no difference in healthfulness between vegetables and a tablespoon of sugar. Again, that's an absurdity.

That's an absurd example, as you yourself said. There's a difference between a carrot and a tablespoon of sugar. There's also a difference between a carrot and vitamin a, but a carrot contains both. It's eating the right amount of carrots (or other food) to get the right amount of the things your body needs to function.

"You can eat an unhealthy amount of a seemingly healthful food." <--- Agree, as in your avocado example
"You shouldn't feel the need to completely wipe out a food from your diet if you don't want to." <--- Agree as well.
"A food that is generally considered not healthful can be consumed as part of a healthy diet." <--- Agree.
"No foods are any more healthy or unhealthy than any other food." <--- Absolutely disagree, and it doesn't follow from the first three statements.

. . .

Couple issues with this statement: I think you're equating harmful with "fattening", which I don't think is correct. Surely, getting fatter is harmful, but not all harmful things are fattening. Also, I don't think "blame" has any place in this conversation -- because it's not about demonizing a given food in any way. One can say a food is unhealthful without meaning, "you should never eat that food," which is I think a large disconnect in most of these conversations.

I think ice cream is generally unhealthful. It doesn't really add a whole lot of nutrition to my diet. However, ice cream is tasty, so I occasionally eat some, because I like to enjoy life. Nothing wrong with that, and I eat a ketogenic diet. It bumps me out of ketosis for a day or so, and then I'm good to go again.

The reason it's hard to say that any food is inherently harmful is that almost any food will have something you need in it. That ice cream that you like to indulge in as an unhealthful treat has perfectly good calories and carbs for you to run on as well as calcium, protein, and fat. It would be easy to go over your macros and calories without hitting your micronutrients, but that's why you have it in moderation.

I'm really not trying to equate "harmful" with "fattening," and I'm sorry if I left that impression. For the diabetics in my family, going over on fat and carbs would definitely be harmful. It doesn't matter how "healthy" everyone else thought the food they went over with was, the harm would be in the amounts. I think a lot of foods fall into those categories. For you, the carbs in your ice cream are harmful to your diet goals so, like me or anyone else paying attention to macros, you can only eat it if it fits into your carb goals.

A moment on the lips, forever on the hips.

Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.

Eat to live not live to eat.

I disagree with ALL of the above!

I live to eat, I love food, I love new foods, quality foods, etc. I love to taste things. And above all, I love the taste of "healthier" foods. Honestly, processed, greasy, salty food ALL TASTES THE SAME! Its made to be bland so that it has mass appeal. Give me the real flavor, I'll savor every freaking bite. Give me vegetables, I love how each one has its one tastes. give me spices, and herbs. Give me multigrain.

Mmmmm, tasty whole foods

sarcasm detector fail.

Check out this web site...
She has awesome healthy recipes tip and tricks. Check out her new ebook. It's filled with yummy things.

HEALTHY FOOD CAN TASTE GOOD!


http://www.withpeanutbutterontop.blogspot.ca/